Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
March 15, 2008

The Great Charade

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The Great Charade (let's pronounce it with a little bit of a French twist, "shar-rod," mais oui?) that is the One World Ecumenical Church of the counterfeit church of conciliarism continues to pull the wool over the eyes of many millions of people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. False ecumenism is heralded repeatedly by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his not-so-merry band of conciliarist henchmen, misleading millions upon millions of people about an abominable apostasy that is hated by Our Lady herself, as Father Maximilian Kolbe, M.I., noted in very direct and unambiguous terms:

"Only until all schismatics and Protestants profess the Catholic Creed with conviction, when all Jews voluntarily ask for Holy Baptism – only then will the Immaculata have reached its goals.”

“In other words” Saint Maximilian insisted,
“there is no greater enemy of the Immaculata and her Knighthood than today’s ecumenism, which every Knight must not only fight against, but also neutralize through diametrically opposed action and ultimately destroy. We must realize the goal of the Militia Immaculata as quickly as possible: that is, to conquer the whole world, and every individual soul which exists today or will exist until the end of the world, for the Immaculata, and through her for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.” (Father Karl Stehlin, Immaculata, Our Ideal, Kansas City, Missouri, Angelus Press, 2007, p. 37.)


Did Father Kolbe have it wrong? He must have been wrong in order for the arch-ecumenist Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to be correct. The principle of non-contradiction, which is contradicted all of the time by those steeped in the errors of Hegelian illogic, teaches us that two mutually contradictory statements cannot be true simultaneously. The conciliarists are absolutely unbent as they pursue the agenda of false ecumenism that was condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos and that Father Maximilian Mary Kolbe, M.I., noted very directly was the greatest enemy of the Immaculata. Only wretched consequences flow from false ecumenism, which is of the essence of the conciliarist ethos and to which Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is committed with his whole Modernist heart and soul.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has called Mount Hiei in Japan, where false worship is offered to devils by the devil-worshipers known as Buddhists, whom the false "pope" hails as people who are devoted to building "peace" in the world. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has blasphemed God grievously in this regard. Where is the outrage? Where is the sense of defending the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity?

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who was not present at the original Assisi World Day of Peace outrage on October 27, 1986, now praises that Assisi event over and over again as he did when greeting the representatives gathered on Mount Hiei some seven and one-half months ago now:

I am glad to greet you and all the religious leaders gathered on the occasion of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Religious Summit Meeting on Mount Hiei. I wish also to convey my best wishes to Venerable Eshin Watanabe, and to recall your distinguished predecessor as Supreme Head of the Tendai Buddhist Denomination, Venerable Etai Yamada. It was he who, having participated in the Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi on that memorable day of 27 October 1986, initiated the “Religious Summit Meeting” on Mount Hiei in Kyoto in order to keep the flame of the spirit of Assisi burning. I am also happy that Cardinal Paul Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, is able to take part in this meeting.

From the supernatural perspective we come to understand that peace is both a gift from God and an obligation for every individual. Indeed the world’s cry for peace, echoed by families and communities throughout the globe, is at once both a prayer to God and an appeal to every brother and sister of our human family. As you assemble on the sacred Mount Hiei, representing different religions, I assure you of my spiritual closeness. May your prayers and cooperation fill you with God’s peace and strengthen your resolve to witness to the reason of peace which overcomes the irrationality of violence!

Upon you all I invoke an abundance of divine blessings of inspiration, harmony and joy.” Benedict XVI sends message to interreligious meeting in Japan


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has personally approved the provision of space in the Roman Archbasilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls so that Protestants may offer their own false worship that is so loathsome in the sight of God.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI sent one of his own representatives, his Secretary of State, Tarcisio "Cardinal" Bertone, to "dedicate" the new Church of the Most Holy Trinity in Fatima, Portugal, which will be, despite years of protestations to the contrary, an "ecumenical" center.

"Cardinal" Bertone, who provided assistance to then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger and Angelo "Cardinal Sodano to deconstruct and misrepresent the Third Secret of Fatima and to attempt to turn Our Lady's Fatima Message into a cause celebre for false ecumenism (making a mockery of the work of Father Maximilian Kolbe), is now considered by some traditionally-minded Catholics to be a "guarantor" of doctrinal orthodoxy. The fact that he approved a note in the magazine of the Society of Jesus based in Rome, La Civilta Cattolica, concerning the nature of Joseph Ratzinger's revised Good Friday prayer for the Jews to be used in six days by priests in the Motu communities who are "permitted" the "privilege" of offering the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 (and revised yet further with the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph in to the Roman Canon in 1962, hence the references to the "1962 Missal) is supposed to "close" the outrage of catering to the ancient enemies of the Catholic Church once and for all.

There is not much time that needs to be spent on the madness of adverting to Tarcisio Bertone, another arch-ecumenist and hence an apostate, as a doctrinal "expert." The "revised" Good Friday prayer for the Jews was analyzed so very well by His Excellency Bishop Donald A. Sanborn in Genuflecting to the Jews, which rebuts the contention that Ratzinger's prayer is faithful to the text of Saint Paul and thus can be considered an eschatological"hope," as both Walter "Cardinal" Kasper and "Archbishop" Gianfranco Ravasi of the Pontifical Council for Culture have indicated it to be in the last few weeks since its text was issued. Indeed Walter Kasper said this on Vatican Radio two days after the text of the "revised prayer was released, fully six days before he wrote his now infamous letter to Rabbi David Rosen in which reiterated the exact same thing that he had said on Vatican Radio and that Archbishop Ravasi had written in L'Osservatore Romano on February 15, 2008, two days after Kasper's letter to David Rosen. The "pope" wasn't aware of these remarks? Preposterous!

To Bishop Sanborn's excellent analysis of the Good Friday prayer, an analysis founded in nothing other than Catholic truth:

Before we say anything, it must be averred that this prayer takes the first prize as being the most bizarre prayer ever to be formulated by anyone.

By the admission of the Modernist inhabitants of the Vatican, the prayer is a reference to Romans XI: 25-26: “For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.”

St. Paul on the Jews

Does St. Paul save Ratzinger’s prayer? No. For Ratzinger’s prayer makes no mention of the necessity of the Jews to abandon their unbelief (perfidia), their darkness, their blindness, and the veil over their eyes. For St. Paul mentions all of these things. • In Galatians V: 4 he says that the Jews have fallen from grace: “You are made void of Christ, you who are justified in the law: you are fallen from grace.”

• In Romans IX: 32-33, he says that they have stumbled through their rejection of Christ: “For they stumbled at the stumblingstone. As it is written: Behold I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and a rock of scandal; and whosoever believeth in him shall not be confounded.”

• In Romans XI: 7-8, St. Paul says that the Jews are blinded, and have the spirit of insensibility: “What then? That which Israel sought, he hath not obtained: but the election hath obtained it; and the rest have been blinded. As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of
insensibility; eyes that they should not see; and ears that they should not hear, until this present day.”

• In Romans XI: 27-30, St. Paul says that the fulfillment of His covenant with the Jews will be the removal of their ungodliness, which is their sin, and that they are enemies of the gospel, and that they are guilty of unbelief: “There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. And this is to them my covenant: when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. For as you also in times past did not believe God, but now have obtained mercy, through their unbelief.”

• In II Corinthians 13-15, St. Paul says that there is a veil on their hearts, and that the Old Testament is void: “And not as Moses put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel might not steadfastly look on the face of that which is made void. But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void). But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.”

According to the reasoning which animates the change in the Good Friday prayer, it would be necessary to rip out these pages from St. Paul.

Indeed it is clear that nothing was in the Good Friday prayer which was not first in St. Paul. Ratzinger cannot cite the authority of St. Paul for his prayer, and at the same time repudiate what the Apostle says in these verses. In fact, his reference to St. Paul invites the reader to look up these texts, only to find statements which the ADL would find outrageous. It should never be forgotten that St. Paul himself was a Jew, indeed a former Pharisee.

Jews Living at the End of Time?

The picture painted by Ratzinger’s prayer is one of all peoples — understand only the Gentiles, for that is the sense of his prayer in the original Latin — coming into the Church (Frankenchurch, the ecumenical one-world Church) and at the same time the salvation of all Israel. It implies that the Church is necessary only for the Gentiles, since the Jews have their own covenant with God, which gives them salvation. Why, for example, was there no reference to Jews’ ungodliness to which St. Paul makes mention in the very same verse from which this prayer is taken? One can only wonder what the prayer would have sounded like if St. Paul had written it.

The section of the epistle to the Romans, to which Ratzinger’s prayer refers, concerns the return of the Jews as a whole (but not absolutely all) to the Catholic Church at the end of time. It therefore refers to a specific point in history in which Jews living at the time
will convert en masse to Catholicism. A number of exegetes speculate that this will in some way coincide with the loss of faith on the part of the Gentiles, in the time of the Great Apostasy from the faith. It seems to fit the sense of St. Paul, if you read the entire eleventh
chapter of Romans, and compare it to II Thessalonians, where he speaks of the Great Apostasy. In other words, it would seem appropriate that the Jews obtain the faith when the Gentiles lose it, just as the Gentiles obtained the faith at the same time that the Jews lost it.

St. Paul, furthermore, does not envisage a general joining of the Catholic Church toward the end of time. In fact, he foresees the opposite, as does Our Lord Himself. The view that the Church will be reduced to a very small number is supported by many commentators. St. Paul’s reference to the Gentiles’ entry into the Church refers to the fact that the gospel will have been preached to all peoples, and that at least some of each people on earth will have embraced [the faith] , therefore, is restricted to only some Jews in a specific time in the future. It is not a general prayer for the conversion of all unfaithful Jews who are now living.

“Cardinal” Kasper, the ultra-arch-Modernist in the Vatican who is in charge of relations with the Jews, confirmed this fact. “...it concerns an invocation which must be understood according to the source of the words used to formulate the prayer: it is a text of Paul the Apostle and expresses the eschatological hope — that is, it refers to the last times, to the end of history — that the people of Israel enter into the Church when all the other peoples will enter. I mean that it expresses a final hope and not an intention to try to convert them.”

In fact it is not a prayer for the conversion of any Jews, since it does not speak of their abandonment of unbelief and their entering the Church. It should not be forgotten that in the Novus Ordo theology, the Jews have their own covenant with God, still valid despite their rejection of Christ, which covenant will bring them to salvation.

So a prayer for the conversion of the Jews, i.e., those existing here and now in the world, is not compatible with the Novus Ordo theology regarding them. Despite this fact, Ratzinger’s prayer is still entitled For the conversion of the Jews, as it was in the 1962 Missal. Oddly, it still calls for the “illumination” of their hearts, obviously implying that Jews have darkened hearts.

Insulting the Jewish religion?

Ratzinger has tried to please both sides, traditionalists and Jews, and succeeded in pleasing neither. He tossed a bone to the traditionalists by retaining the title calling for the conversion of the Jews, which angered the Jews, and he tossed a bone to the Jews by
removing the reference to the veil over their hearts, which is, as we saw, also from St. Paul. But this was not enough for the Jews, since they feel that a call for their conversion from Judaism is an insult to their religion.

Indeed it is. But their religion is a false one, and it is the business of the Catholic Church to insult falsehood, as much as it is its business to proclaim the truth. Our Lord said “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice.” (John XVIII: 37) For falsehood, whatever its form, is the product of the devil, coming as it does from ignorance and pride, both effects of original sin.

What need have we of the Catholic Church if it does not clearly distinguish to the whole world what is the true religion, and what is the false? What need have we of the Catholic Church if it does not fulfill the command of Christ to preach the gospel to all peoples, including the Jews, with the intention of converting them? Our Lord said to the Apostles: “Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark XVI: 16) This is an unequivocal order from God to convert the whole world to Catholicism. What need have we of a church which is not faithful to the commandments of its Divine Founder?

But the Jews, aggressive as is their wont, insist that the Catholic Church abandon the commandments of its Divine Founder, whom they consider to be a phony. They will not be pleased until the conversion word is gone, and until a prayer is substituted which proclaims their independent and ever valid agreement with God, enabling them to ignore Christ and His Church.

Ratzinger, in changing the Good Friday prayer, did essentially what Pontius Pilate did on Good Friday: in order to appease a crowd of Jews calling for the death of Christ, he had Him whipped and crowned with thorns, in the hope that the halfmeasure would have the full effect of satisfying the death-demanding rabble. But all he received in return for this cowardly and dastardly act was ever louder cries of “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” He also merited a permanent place of shame in the Nicene Creed. ( Genuflecting to the Jews)


Bishop Sanborn's analysis is a breath of Catholic sanity in air that is thick with the pollution of positivism and self-delusion. The Catholic Church, no matter what a few historians might want to contend to the contrary, has indeed sought the conversion of all men, including Jews, to her maternal bosom from the very time that God the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles and our dear Blessed Mother on Pentecost Sunday in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had instituted the priesthood and the Eucharist for our sanctification and salvation just fifty-three days before:

Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words. For these are not drunk, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day:

But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord come.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it. For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved.

For this my heart hath been glad, and any tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.

Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses. Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear. For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy enemies thy footstool.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. (Acts 2: 14-41.)

Saint Stephen certainly had a program for the conversion of the Jews. Was he acting on his own? Was he doing the work that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had appointed for His Holy Church each day until the end of time?

Now there arose some of that which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them that were of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit that spoke.

Then they suborned men to say, they had heard him speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God. And they stirred up the people, and the ancients, and the scribes; and running together, they took him, and brought him to the council. And they set up false witnesses, who said: This man ceaseth not to speak words against the holy place and the law. For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the traditions which Moses delivered unto us. And all that sat in the council, looking on him, saw his face as if it had been the face of an angel.

Then the high priest said: Are these things so? Who said: Ye men, brethren, and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan. And said to him: Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee. Then he went out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charan. And from thence, after his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein you now dwell. And he gave him no inheritance in it; no, not the pace of a foot: but he promised to give it him in possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.

And God said to him: That his seed should sojourn in a strange country, and that they should bring them under bondage, and treat them evil four hundred years. And the nation which they shall serve will I judge, said the Lord; and after these things they shall go out, and shall serve me in this place. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision, and so he begot Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begot Jacob; and Jacob the twelve patriarchs.And the patriarchs, through envy, sold Joseph into Egypt; and God was with him, And delivered him out of all his tribulations: and he gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharao, the king of Egypt; and he appointed him governor over Egypt, and over all his house.

Now there came a famine upon all Egypt and Chanaan, and great tribulation; and our fathers found no food. But when Jacob had heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent our fathers first: And at the second time, Joseph was known by his brethren, and his kindred was made known to Pharao. And Joseph sending, called thither Jacob, his father, and all his kindred, seventy-five souls. So Jacob went down into Egypt; and he died, and our fathers.

And they were translated into Sichem, and were laid in the sepulchre, that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Hemor, the son of Sichem. And when the time of the promise drew near, which God had promised to Abraham, the people increased, and were multiplied in Egypt, Till another king arose in Egypt, who knew not Joseph. This same dealing craftily with our race, afflicted our fathers, that they should expose their children, to the end they might not be kept alive. At the same time was Moses born, and he was acceptable to God: who was nourished three months in his father's house.

And when he was exposed, Pharao's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son.And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians; and he was mighty in his words and in his deeds. And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the children of Israel. And when he had seen one of them suffer wrong, he defended him; and striking the Egyptian, he avenged him who suffered the injury. And he thought that his brethren understood that God by his hand would save them; but they understood it not.

And the day following, he showed himself to them when they were at strife; and would have reconciled them in peace, saying: Men, ye are brethren; why hurt you one another? But he that did the injury to his neighbour thrust him away, saying: Who hath appointed thee prince and judge over us? What, wilt thou kill me, as thou didst yesterday kill the Egyptian? And Moses fled upon this word, and was a stranger in the land of Madian, where he begot two sons. And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the desert of mount Sina, an angel in a flame of fire in a bush.

And Moses seeing it, wondered at the sight. And as he drew near to view it, the voice of the Lord came unto him, saying: I am the God of thy fathers; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses being terrified, durst not behold. And the Lord said to him: Loose the shoes from thy feet, for the place wherein thou standest, is holy ground. Seeing I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, and I will send thee into Egypt. This Moses, whom they refused, saying: Who hath appointed thee prince and judge? him God sent to be prince and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.

He brought them out, doing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the desert forty years. This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel: A prophet shall God raise up to you of your own brethren, as myself: him shall you hear. This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on mount Sina, and with our fathers; who received the words of life to give unto us. Whom our fathers would not obey; but thrust him away, and in their hearts turned back into Egypt, Saying to Aaron: Make us gods to go before us. For as for this Moses, who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him.

And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifices to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. And God turned, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven, as it is written in the books of the prophets: Did you offer victims and sacrifices to me for forty years, in the desert, O house of Israel? And you took unto you the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Rempham, figures which you made to adore them. And I will carry you away beyond Babylon. The tabernacle of the testimony was with our fathers in the desert, as God ordained for them, speaking to Moses, that he should make it according to the form which he had seen. Which also our fathers receiving, brought in with Jesus, into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David.

Who found grace before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. But Solomon built him a house. Yet the most High dwelleth not in houses made by hands, as the prophet saith: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool. What house will you build me? saith the Lord; or what is the place of my resting? Hath not my hand made all these things?

You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who foretold of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. Now hearing these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed with their teeth at him. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

And they crying out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and with one accord ran violently upon him. And casting him forth without the city, they stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, invoking, and saying: Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying: Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep in the Lord. And Saul was consenting to his death. (Acts 6: 9-9-25; 7: 1-57.)


Saint Vincent Ferrer, O.P., certainly had a program to convert the Jews--and the Mohammedans--of the Iberian Peninsula at the end of the Fourteenth and the beginning of the Fifteenth Centuries:

He exposed the perfidy of the Jews, and refuted the false doctrines of the Saracens, but with so much earnestness and success, that he brought a great number of infidels to the faith of Christ, and converted many thousand Christians from sin to repentance, and from vice to virtue. God had chosen him to teach the way of salvation to all nations, and tribes, and tongues; as also to warn men of the coming of the last and dread day of judgment, He so preached, that he struck terror into the minds of all his hearers, and turned them from earthly affections to the love of God. (From The Roman Breviary, quoted in Dom Prosper Gueranger's The Liturgical Year.)


The Mother of God had a program to convert the Jews--and all others--by means of her Miraculous Medal and Green Scapular, given, respectively to two different Sisters of the Daughters of Charity, Saint Catherine Laboure and Sister Justine Bisqueyburo, confirming the use of the Miraculous Medal to convert the notorious Catholic-hating Jew by the name of Alphonse Ratisbonne as she appeared to him on January 20, 1842, in the Church of San Andrea delle Fratte in the image by which she appears on the Miraculous Medal that he had be given to wear by his brother Theodore. Pope Pius IX approved the the program conceived by Father Alphonse Ratisbonne to go to the Holy Land to seek the conversion of the Jews. His brother, Father Theodore Ratisbonne, who had written a beautiful biography of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, had been given permission by Pope Gregory XVI to seek the conversion of the Jews.

Oh, lest I forget, wasn't it Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself who sought the conversion of Saul of Tarsus as he was making his way on the road to Damascus to persecute yet more Catholics?

And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, And asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues: that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus; and suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him. And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.

And he trembling and astonished, said: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. But they leading him by the hands, brought him to Damascus. And he was there three days, without sight, and he did neither eat nor drink. Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias. And the Lord said to him in a vision: Ananias. And he said: Behold I am here, Lord.

And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the street that is called Stait, and seek in the house of Judas, one named Saul of Tarsus. For behold he prayeth.(And he saw a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hands upon him, that he might receive his sight.) But Ananias answered: Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints in Jerusalem. And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that invoke thy name. And the Lord said to him: Go thy way; for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.

For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house. And laying his hands upon him, he said: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, he that appeared to thee in the way as thou camest; that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was baptized. And when he had taken meat, he was strengthened. And he was with the disciples that were at Damascus, for some days. And immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. (Acts 9: 1-20.)

No program for conversion? Let's get serious about the truth rather than subordinating the truth to the exigencies of a false pope who desires to promote false ecumenism and the falsehoods of religious liberty and separation of Church and State at every turn, ad nauseam, at infinitum.

Pope Saint Pius X was prepared to undertake a program for the conversion of the Jews, as he made clear to Theodore Herzl, the founder of international Zionism, on January 25, 1904:

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.

HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]

POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.

POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?

HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.

POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.

[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.

HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?

POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.


To contend that the Catholic Church merely desires to express a "hope" for the conversion of the Talmudic Jews at the end of time is to state that their immortal souls are in no jeopardy whatsoever of eternal hellfire, making a mockery of this solemn declaration of the Council of Florence that was promulgated by Pope Eugene IV, February 4, 1442:

"The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that 'no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels,' unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For the union with the body of the Church is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those who remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards from them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms, he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."


Those who want to convince themselves of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "orthodoxy" must overlook his Hegelianism, proved by his Modernist rejection of the nature of truth and how past dogmatic statements can change in their meaning from one era to the next (anyone who denies this is either delusional or engaging in the height of intellectual dishonesty), and overlook his constant support for religious liberty and separation of Church and State and false ecumenism. After all, I guess I must have missed Joseph Ratzinger's abjuration of his beliefs about the nature of dogmatic truth and his belief that the "Second" Vatican Council served as a "counter-syllabus" of errors, thereby making "obsolete" this passage from Principles of Catholic Theology:

If is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text (Gaudium et Spes) as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty, and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. Harnack, as we know, interpreted the Syllabus of Pius IX as nothing less than a declaration of war against his generation. This is correct insofar as the Syllabus established a line of demarcation against the determining forces of the nineteenth century: against the scientific and political world view of liberalism. In the struggle against modernism the twofold delimitation was ratified and strengthened. Since then many things have changed. The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI produced a certain openness toward a liberal understanding of the state. In a quiet but persistent struggle, exegesis and Church history adopted more and more the postulates of liberal science, and liberalism, too, was obliged to undergo many significant changes in the great political upheavals of the twentieth century. As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution and was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789. In fact, an attitude that was largely pre-revolutionary continued to exist in countries with strong Catholic majorities. Hardly anyone will deny today that the Spanish and Italian Concordat strove to preserve too much of a view of the world that no longer corresponded to the facts. Hardly anyone will deny today that, in the field of education and with respect to the historico-critical method in modern science, anachronisms existed that corresponded closely to this adherence to an obsolete Church-state relationship. Only a careful investigation of the different ways in which acceptance of the new era was accomplished in various parts of the Church could unravel the complicated network of causes that formed the background of the "Pastoral Constitution". and only thus can the dramatic history of its influence be brought to light.


Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381-382.)


Joseph Ratzinger, must have abjured this, coming to his Catholic senses after reading Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of his own Modernism, right?

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)


Rabid defenders of Benedict XVI must treat all of this as either irrelevant or pretend that they themselves used to criticize Ratzinger rather directly--and relentlessly--for these exact same denials of Catholic teaching.

Such people also must overlook the plain evidence that he, Benedict XVI, has used the "revised" prayer for the conversion of the Jews on Good Friday to introduce the "reform of the reform" that both Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., and Sandro Magister of Chiesa magazine in Italy recognize most astutely is the ultimate goal of Summorum Pontificum (as is indicated also in Benedict's accompanying letter to the conciliar "bishops" upon the issuance of Summorum Pontificum):

Father Lombardi continued: "Neither the Missal of Pius V and John XXIII -- used by a small minority -- nor that of Paul VI -- used today with much spiritual fruit by the greatest majority -- will be the final 'law of prayer' of the Catholic Church. (Zenit, July 15, 2007.)

From this point of view, then, the new prayer for the Jews in the liturgy in the ancient rite does not weaken, but postulates an enrichment of the meaning of the prayer in use in the modern rite. Exactly like in other cases, it is the modern rite that postulates an enriching evolution of the ancient rite. In a liturgy that is perennially alive, as the Catholic liturgy is, this is the meaning of the coexistence between the two rites, ancient and modern, as intended by Benedict XVI with the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum."

This is a coexistence that is not destined to endure, but to fuse in the future "in a single Roman rite once again," taking the best from both of these. This is what then-cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 2003 – revealing a deeply held conviction – in a letter to an erudite representative of Lefebvrist traditionalism, the German philologist Heinz-Lothar Barth. (Sandro Magister, A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews.)


Ah, so it's not simply "traditionalists" guilty of "rash judgments" who have come to the conclusion about the true purposes of Summorum Pontificum. Father Federico Lombardi, the official spokesman for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has said so directly. So has Sandro Magister, hardly a "wild-eyed traditionalist," in Chiesa. Magister's source? None other than Joseph Ratzinger himself, that's all.

This is recognized by many even in the "resist and recognize" camp, including Father Basilio Meramo of the Society of Saint Pius X:

Sacred Scripture warns us that Satan often transforms himself into an Angel of Light (2 Corinthians 11:14), that is, as an apparent good, to seduce the faithful. "For the Devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour" (2 Peter 5:8). For this reason, St. Peter exhorts us to be sober and watchful.

Many, if not the great majority, of the defenders of the Traditional Mass and doctrine have seen the Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI as a great good, in that it recognized that the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated. This "recognition" is seen by those holding this "optimistic" view as something like a piece of parched land that would welcome a gently-falling rain after a long drought. And, even more, we see how they are so overcome with gratitude that they are forecasting the most promising vistas for a happy future, of verdant greenery and bright and beautiful blossoms.

But if we analyze the facts dispassionately and in the steady, clear light of the Faith, we see that the beautiful scenery vanishes before our eyes, like the vain and dangerous mirage-like illusion that it is. Nothing could be better or more perspicacious than to recognize as true that the Traditional Mass was never legally abrogated, although it was suppressed in a manner that was an abuse of power, as Archbishop Lefebvre and traditional Catholics have always maintained.

Therefore, the declaration by Benedict XVI affirming that the true Mass was never abolished appears, at first sight, to be a victory. However, after closer examination of the declaration, one perceives both the subtlety and the intelligence of this action. Benedict XVI is attempting by an audacious and effective way to accomplish his most profound and desired goal according to his Modernistic mindset, so that many critics of Modernism have not been able to appreciate fully the vastness of his aims or the subtlety of his strategy.

Benedict XVI, who has a keen and penetrating intellect, intends to legitimize the New Mass by attempting to portray it as a legitimate and faithful development of the ancient Roman rite. To be successful, he had to heal the rupture created by the attempted suppression of the Traditional Mass, first by denying that the Traditional Mass had been abolished. For the Traditional Mass was the faithful expression of the ancient Roman Mass, both in its historical development and in its dogmatic content, promulgated in perpetuity.

Historically, it could not be affirmed that a schismatic break had taken place in the development of the rite, as Joseph Ratzinger declared in his autobiography. But this is in fact what had been declared had happened when the New Mass was introduced, so it was necessary to repair the breach. The second great event that occurred at the beginning of my years at Ratisbon was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, with the almost total prohibition of the Traditional Missal. But I was perplexed by the prohibition of the Traditional Missal, for nothing similar had ever occurred in the history of the liturgy. One cannot speak of a prohibition of the older and, until then, legitimately valid Missal, whose development through the centuries can be traced back all the way to the Sacramentaries of the early Church. This brought about a break in the history of the liturgy, whose consequences could be only tragic (Joseph Ratzinger, Mi Vida, ed. Encuentro, Madrid, 2005, pp. 148-149).

We can see then that, for Cardinal Ratzinger, the historical break cannot be legitimately defended, and this rupture had to be healed, especially given his plan to portray the New Mass as a legitimate continuation and development of the Traditional Missal and as an authentic expression of the Roman Rite of the Mass. With his dialectic, oecumenist mind, he could perceive that it could not be affirmed that the New Missal was a legitimate development of the Roman Rite, if on the other hand it was affirmed that the Traditional Missal was not.

Therefore, if both Missals are legitimate developments of the ancient Roman Rite, then it is incoherent to affirm that the Traditional Missal is prohibited or has been abolished, especially if one wants to pass off the New Mass, described by Archbishop Lefebvre as a Protestantized and bastard rite, as an equally legitimate development and expression of the ancient Roman Rite, as the Traditional Rite indeed was. Which brings us to the ultimate aim of Benedict XVI.

The attempt to reconcile the New Mass with the Traditional Mass is the first step in his plan to bring about a reconciliation between the teachings of Vatican II and the True Faith. He cannot permit a rupture or separation to remain, which would impede his dialectic synthesis, for, as he declared when he was Cardinal Ratzinger: "For the life of the Church, it is dramatically urgent that a renewal of the liturgical conscience take place that will recognize once again the unity of the history of the liturgy and will understand Vatican II not as a rupture, but as a moment of development" (ibidem). It now becomes clearly manifested what was the real motivation behind the recognition of the fact that the Traditional Missal was never abrogated. It is s the well-known one step backward/two steps forward strategy.

It would be naïve to think that Benedict XVI has taken these measures because he is moving closer to the Traditional Mass and the True Faith. For according to his own words, the aim of these measures is the consolidation and legitimization of the New Mass and of Vatican II. He is attempting this not through brutal and dramatic measures that break with the past, but by using the method of a subtle and gradual evolution [as "Fr." Ratzinger did at Vatican II], he hopes to reconcile and convince all of the opponents of Vatican II and of the New Mass of their legitimacy.

Benedict XVI is proceeding gently, yet firmly, to establish that the New Mass and Vatican II do not constitute a break with the past, either liturgically or doctrinally, but rather that they are the fruit of an organic growth and development within the Church and must be accepted by all of the faithful. Therefore, the Traditional Mass is the expression of an historical past, and the New Mass is the faithful expression of the vital present and the promise of an even more glorious future.

One cannot conceive of a more subtle, clever, and intelligent maneuver that clearly intends to eliminate the forces that compose the Catholic resistance to the innovations and that defend the Traditional Mass and doctrines of the Catholic Church. This elimination is to take place without any dramatic clashes or brutal confrontations, as was attempted in the past, but rather with a warm oecumenical embrace, which will not leave behind any rotting corpses that could mar the irenic and bucolic scenery. This is not how one proceeds in our democratic age, for now we destroy by dialectic substitution. (February 2008 Commentaries on Traditio)


Magister's article, which should be read in its entirety, cited above also contains "Archbishop" Gianfranco Ravasi's admission that the "revised" Good Friday prayer is simply an expression of an "eschatological hope" for the conversion of "Israel" at the end of time, a statement that is almost entirely identical to the letter that Walter "Cardinal" Kasper sent to Rabbi David Rosen on February 13, 2008. Readers can judge this for themselves. And the article contains Rabbi Jacob Neusner's willingness to accept the "right" of the conciliarists to pray as they please as it is the case that adherents of the Talmud pray that "enlightenment" comes to the Gentiles! Ah, the joys of false ecumenism. The joys of religious indifferentism Aren't they grand--NOT?


The machinations of the Modernists in the counterfeit church of conciliarism will continue until there is the triumph of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. While it may be important to note these machinations and to try to explain them for what they are for those who are willing to look at the truth of our situation objectively, there is no need for Catholics who are trying to save their souls in the catacombs under the direction of true bishops and true priests to be agitated by them. No, we must recognize that each of these machinations are from the devil and that they have nothing to do with the Catholic Church whatsoever.

Our Lady was splattered with the Most Precious Blood of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as He redeemed us on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday, which will be upon us in just six days. Father Frederick Faber, writing in The Precious Blood, explained that the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, unlike the machinations of the conciliarists, is without change:

The life of God is very vast. This is the thought which comes to me when I put before myself the empire of the Precious Blood. the life of God is blessedness in his own self. It is the joy of his unity, the fact of his simplicity. Once he was without creatures; and the calm jubilee of his immutable life went on. There could be no impulses in that which had had no beginning. His life started from no point, and reached to no point; therefore it could have no momentum: that is a created idea. He was imperturbable bliss. What can be more self-collected than immensity? His infinite tenderness comes from his being imperturbable, though at first sight there seems to be contradictions between the two. When he was without creatures, they were not a want to him. His unbeginning life was unspeakable centred in himself, and so went on. He became, what he had not been before, a Creator. But no change passed upon him. All his acts had been in himself before: now he acted outside himself. But no change passed upon him. Hitherto all his acts, which were the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Holy Ghost, had been necessary: now his creative acts were free. Still no change passed upon him. Still the calm jubilee of the unbeginning life went on. As it was before creation, so it was after it, a jubilant life of unutterable simplicity. These are things  we can only learn by loving. Without love they are merely hard words. God worked, and then God rested. Yet creation had been no interruption of his everlasting rest. Nevertheless, that Sabbath of God, of which Scripture tells us, is a wonderful mystery, and one full of repose to toiling, seeking, straining creatures. What was that seventh day's rest? To the untoiling Creator preservation is as much an effort as creation, and quite as great a mystery. But even creation, the evoking of being out of nothing, was not suspended. Human souls are forever being created, created out of nothing. Perhaps new species of animals may be so also. What then was his rest? Perhaps it is only another name for that expansive love, which as it were attested itself to bless its beautiful creation out of its extreme contentment and ineffable complacency.

Still the vast life of God goes on. He was free to create; and Perhaps those two things have much to do with each other. He made himself an empire outside himself, and crowned himself over it, the kingliest of kings. God is very royal. Royalty is the seal which is set on all his perfections, and by which we see how they are one. He enfranchised his empire, and then began to reign. Still there was no change. His free people dethroned him. Oftentimes now in the depths of prayer the love of his saints beholds him sitting in dust and ashes as an uncrowned king, as it were piteously. But all this is embraced within his vast life without a shadow of change. It was part of the external idea of creation, that one of the Divine Persons should assume a created nature. The Second Person did so. He has carried it to heaven, and placed it in the bosom of the Holy Trinity for endless worship. This has displaced nothing. The vast life goes on. No pulse beats in it. No succession belongs to it. No novelty happens to it. The Precious Blood of the Son's Human Nature would have been a pure beauty, a pure treasure of God, an unimaginable created life, if there had been no sins. But there was sin, and the destiny of the Precious Blood was changed. But there was no change in the divine life. The Precious Blood became the ransom for sin. The Precious Blood had to conquer back to God his revolted empire. It had to crown him again, and to be his imperial viceregent. What stupendous mutabilities are these! Yet there is no change in the vast life of God. Its very vastness makes it incapable of change. It has no experiences. It goes through nothing. It cannot begin, or end, or suffer. It works while it rests, and it rests while it works; and it neither works nor rests, but simply lives, simply is. O adorable life of God! blessed a thousand times be thou in the darkness of thy glory, in the incomprehensible sweetness of thy majesty!

To us the Precious Blood is inseparable from the life of God. It is the Blood of the Creator, the agent of redemption, the power of sanctification. Moreover, to our eyes it is a token of something which we should call a change in God, if we did not know that there could not be change in him. It seems to give God a past, to recover for him something which he had lost, to be a second thought, to remedy a failure, to be a new ornament in the Divinity, a created joy in the very centre of the uncreated jubilee. The empire of the Precious Blood is due to its position in the history and economy of creation, or, in other words, to its relation to the adorable life of God. It seems to explain the eternity before creation, inasmuch as it reveals to us the eternal thoughts of God, his compassionate designs, his primal decrees, and his merciful persistence in carrying out his designs of love. It makes visible much that in its own nature was invisible. It casts a light backward, even upon the uttermost recesses of that old eternity. Just as some actions disclose more of a man's character than other actions, so the Precious Blood is in itself a most extensive and peculiarly vivid revelation of the character of God. The fact of his redeeming us, and still more, the way in which he has redeemed us, and, still more, the way in which he had redeemed us, discloses to us his reason for creating us; and when we get some view, however transient and indistinct, of his reason for creating us, we seem to look into the life he leads as God. The light is so light that it is darkness; but the darkness is knowledge, and the knowledge, love. (Father Frederick Faber, The Precious Blood, published originally in 1860, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 82-84.)


No novelty happens in the life of God. No novelty can happen in the life of His Holy Church. We must Our Lady this Holy Week, which begins with First Vespers this evening, to keep us steadfast as we keep close to her Divine Son this week by keeping close to her, especially by praying the Sorrowful Mysteries of her Most Holy Rosary with fervor and praying her Seven Dolors each day with renewed love and devotion to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart and the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, those twin hearts of pure, matchless love that will explode the great charade of conciliarism for what it has been from the beginning:  means to deceive souls and go give offense to God by a perverse ape of the Catholic Church.

Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us to make a good, prayer, penitential Holy Week to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world through your own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, pierced as it was with Seven Swords of Sorrow, giving all through that Immaculate Heart ot the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.


Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2008, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.